You are here: / / CONTRACT WHICH CALLED FOR THE PRICE FOR EXHIBITS AT TRADE SHOWS TO BE AMORTIZED...

CONTRACT WHICH CALLED FOR THE PRICE FOR EXHIBITS AT TRADE SHOWS TO BE AMORTIZED OVER UP-COMING EVENTS WAS NOT AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE AND WAS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE ENFORCEABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined a contract was not an agreement to agree and was sufficiently definite, and the liquidated damages clause was enforceable. The parties agreed that plaintiff would provide exhibit services at several trade shows with the price amortized over the upcoming shows. Defendant informed plaintiff it was not going to participate in the 2016 shows and this breach of contract action was brought:

​

The agreement itself is … sufficient to establish a binding contract inasmuch as the parties agreed to a fixed cost for each show that defendant was required to attend and set a minimum amount that defendant was obligated to spend in aggregate over the four shows … . …

​

” [W]here the parties have completed their negotiations of what they regard as essential elements, and performance has begun on the good faith understanding that agreement on the unsettled matters will follow, the court will find and enforce a contract even though the parties have expressly left these other elements for future negotiation and agreement, if some objective method of determination is available, independent of either party’s mere wish or desire’ ” … . …

​

“Where, as here, the parties to the agreement were sophisticated business [entities], and the terms of the agreement were mutually negotiated, with each party represented by experienced counsel, a liquidated damages provision which is reached at arm’s length is entitled to deference” … . The evidence in the record … establishes that plaintiff’s damages “are sufficiently difficult to ascertain to satisfy the first requirement of a valid liquidated damages provision” … . With respect to the second requirement, we conclude that the negotiated amount of liquidated damages is not ” conspicuously disproportionate to [plaintiff’s] foreseeable losses’ ” … . RES Exhibit Servs., LLC v Genesis Vision, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 07796, Fourth Dept 11-9-17

 

CONTRACT LAW (CONTRACT WHICH CALLED FOR THE PRICE FOR EXHIBITS AT TRADE SHOWS TO BE AMORTIZED OVER UP-COMING EVENTS WAS NOT AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE AND WAS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE ENFORCEABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/AGREEMENT TO AGREE (CONTRACT WHICH CALLED FOR THE PRICE FOR EXHIBITS AT TRADE SHOWS TO BE AMORTIZED OVER UP-COMING EVENTS WAS NOT AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE AND WAS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE ENFORCEABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/DEFINITENESS DOCTRINE (CONTRACT WHICH CALLED FOR THE PRICE FOR EXHIBITS AT TRADE SHOWS TO BE AMORTIZED OVER UP-COMING EVENTS WAS NOT AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE AND WAS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE ENFORCEABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/LIQUIDATED DAMAGES (CONTRACT LAW, CONTRACT WHICH CALLED FOR THE PRICE FOR EXHIBITS AT TRADE SHOWS TO BE AMORTIZED OVER UP-COMING EVENTS WAS NOT AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE AND WAS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE ENFORCEABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/SOPHISTICATED BUSINESS ENTITIES (CONTRACT LAW, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, CONTRACT WHICH CALLED FOR THE PRICE FOR EXHIBITS AT TRADE SHOWS TO BE AMORTIZED OVER UP-COMING EVENTS WAS NOT AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE AND WAS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE ENFORCEABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/

/by
You might also like
Grievance Did Not Relate to Provisions of Collective Bargaining Agreement
PLAINTIFFS’ CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING EXPOSURE TO TOXIC FUMES ARE TIME-BARRED PURSUANT TO CPLR 214-C (FOURTH DEPT).
PETITIONER SOUGHT ATTORNEY’S FEES AS THE PREVAILING PARTY PURSUANT TO NEW YORK’S EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT UNDER THE “CATALYST THEORY;” THE 4TH DEPARTMENT REJECTED THE CATALYST THEORY, FINDING PETITIONER WAS NOT THE PREVAILING PARTY UNDER THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY GAVE THE INSURER THE RIGHT TO PROSECUTE A TITLE CLAIM BUT NOT THE OBLIGATION TO PROSECUTE A TITLE CLAIM; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT ALLEGING DEFENDANT BREACHED THE POLICY BY NOT PROSECUTING THE CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE PROSECUTOR WAS GUILTY OF SERIOUS MISCONDUCT, DEFENDANT DID NOT OBJECT TO THE PROSECUTOR’S REMARKS AND REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WAS NOT WARRANTED, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
FAMILY COURT DID NOT FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE SET OUT IN THE UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT (UCCJEA) BEFORE DETERMINING IT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER FATHER’S CUSTODY PROCEEDING, MOTHER HAD BROUGHT A CUSTODY PROCEEDING IN PENNSYLVANIA, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED UNDER RISK FACTOR 9.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

TOWN’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF A HEARING ABOUT THE PLACEMENT OF... BECAUSE PROMISE IN PLEA AGREEMENT RE CREDIT FOR JAIL TIME COULD NOT BE FULFILLED,...